Responding to a Cry for Help: Additional Resource Bases in Schools

Haringey Education Partnership (HEP) has identified a rapid, largely ad-hoc growth of Additional Resource Bases (ARBs) inside mainstream schools – internally run provisions designed to support pupils whose needs are not met through universal classroom practice. Terminology is inconsistent (e.g., “in-school support unit,” “internal AP,” “nurture hub”), research is thin, and quality is highly variable. ARBs present both risk and opportunity: without design and oversight they can drift into the realm of informal exclusion, yet with clear purpose, skilled staffing, and curriculum ambition they can be engines of inclusion and school improvement. This report defines the issue, shares locally-gathered evidence, and sets out a practical quality-assurance and support offer for schools.

HEP’s methodology for gathering intelligence on ARBs combined (i) a baseline survey of member schools in Jan–Feb 2025 (58 responses), (ii) design of a broad-form audit through a cross-phase working party, and (iii) spring 2025 school visits. Data were thematically coded against four audit domains: Purpose & leadership; Policy & protocols; Curriculum, pedagogy & expertise; and Finance, capacity & environment. Participation was voluntary and evidence is necessarily provisional.

Key findings show ten consistent patterns across settings:

1. The terminology around ARBs is inconsistent.
2. Purpose of the ARB drifts with need.
3. Staffing is mixed, leaning support-staff heavy with uneven teacher involvement.
4. Admissions criteria is variable in formality and an ad hoc approach is common.
5. Time allocation and duration of stay varied from timetabled flex to indefinite stay.
6. Needs served differ by phase.
7. Funding pressures are near-universal.
8. ARB spaces and environments are constrained and often improvised.
9. Curriculum and pedagogy range from mainstream-aligned to enriched nurture.
10. Risk signals of ‘internal exclusion’ were present in several cases.

A coding snapshot further illustrates the picture:

• A formal admissions process is evident in 58% of settings;
• Funding pressures were cited by 83% of settings;
• Environment constraints were cited by 58% of settings.
• A qualified teacher explicitly attached in 75% of settings;
• A defined placement duration/review points existed in 75% of settings

Implications are clear. In the current national climate – with rising exclusions and high SEMH/SEND demand – schools are innovating faster than policy. Without a shared language, standards, and peer challenge, ARBs risk becoming costly holding pens rather than inclusive, high-quality support. HEP therefore proposes a four-phase guided programme:

1. Clarify & Plan (shared definitions, self-evaluation, implementation mapping);
2. Resource Bank (audit tools, model policies, curriculum exemplars);
3. Professional Learning Pathway (leadership and SEND-focused training); and
4. Sustain & Improve (termly peer review against HEP’s ARB Quality Framework, annual Improvement Partner visit, longitudinal SEF comparison).

This approach aims to secure consistency, improve outcomes, and keep ARBs integrated with mainstream provision as places of support, not sanction.

Luke Kemper is Insight and Intelligence Lead at HEP. He graduated from the University of Cambridge with an MPhil in Education, Globalisation and International Development. Before that, he worked for seven years as a university lecturer and high school teacher in China and Poland.